Slashdot Mirror


Obama Rejects New Atlantic Ocean Oil Drilling (usatoday.com)

mdsolar writes: The Obama administration will abandon its plan to allow new offshore oil drilling on the U.S. southeast coast, dealing a blow to petroleum companies that had hopes of tapping new reserves. The Interior Department is set to announce today that it will not auction off certain drilling rights for Atlantic Ocean waters off the coast of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. The reversal comes after environmentalists, coastal residents, and the U.S. military vocalized opposition to the plan. It also comes amid declining industry investment in new exploration and production activities as oil prices fell by about 70% since late 2014 -- although the industry is still seeking long-term investment opportunities under the assumption that oil prices will recover.

176 comments

  1. Thanks by mdsolar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    @BarackObama

    1. Re:Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget this is a continuation of the police state brought to you by @GeorgeWBush

    2. Re:Thanks by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      A bizarre comment to an article about drilling in the Atlantic. I'm trying to figure how this is W's fault.

    3. Re:Thanks by kqs · · Score: 0

      I agree. Thanks, Obama! Don't auction these rights when the price of oil is way down; wait until oil is expensive again and then rake in the cash from the oil companies. (Probably in Hillary's second term.)

      I'm quite sure that no matter what environmentalists or science says we'll eventually drill there, so we may as well help the budget rather than just making some oil companies even richer.

    4. Re:Thanks by Masked+Coward · · Score: 1

      Tried to mod as "Overrated" Accidentally chose "Funny"

    5. Re:Thanks by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, that's not how you do it.

      In the US, the mantra is that the private sector MUST get all the profit, and losses must be distributed equally by everyone [assuming 'everyone' is the bottom 99%].

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:Thanks by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 1

      So you're one of those assholes who likes to do the "-1 Disagree" mods.

    7. Re:Thanks by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      If you let the guy you like make police state rules, you don't get to complain when the guy you hate uses them.

      What I'm trying to understand is how the hell the GP got himself convinced that not selling drilling rights which he is under absolutely no obligation to sell, qualifies as "police state" behavior at all...

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  2. Oil Glut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do we even care at this point?

    1. Re:Oil Glut by sims+2 · · Score: 0

      Not everyone can afford a tesla.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:Oil Glut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because it really boils down to Oil or Tesla. Absolutely. Great summation.

    3. Re:Oil Glut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone can afford a villa on high ground.

    4. Re:Oil Glut by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Your welcome to elaborate on why you think we shouldn't care any more. I just assumed it was because most people where you live have switched to electric.

      However I suppose you could have been talking about how gas is currently so cheap no one cares if they only get 5MPG

      The only current non fossil contenders I am aware of are electric and hydrogen. I don't see hydrogen beating out electric and tesla happens to be the biggest name in EVs right now.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    5. Re:Oil Glut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Liberals don't care about the middle class. They constantly tell me how people in Alabama are so uneducated that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. They are constantly interrupting Trump rallies, specifically Bernie Sanders supporters. They favour censorship and believe they should be allowed to prevent you from expressing an opinion they don't like, see Citizen's United case. They oppose school vouchers because it might let the poor kids get a better education at "their" schools. On top of all that, if these middle class say anything there is an endless wave of liberals saying the only reason they oppose the oppression the left has put on them is because they don't like a black guy in the White House.

      It has become quite disgusting really. The fact that the only candidate running for president that wants to enforce current illegal immigration laws, that are killing the jobs of those middle class, is being called a racist because of that tells you all you need to know about them.

      Liberals take from you, such as Obamacare tax increases, and give you nothing back but name calling while acting like it is you who is the only one who is uncivilized.

    6. Re:Oil Glut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A post full of utter nonsense, especially re: Citizen's united, which nakedly subverts democracy by allowing a massive influx of unaccounted money into the already distorted political process. If you were actually for the middle class and poor, you should be vociferously against that awful SCOTUS-made law, which reduces the influence of the people in the political process. (Why is it that when pseudo-conservatives (note the Republican party of today or the Tea Party, aren't exactly your goldwater or even Reagan conservatives) don't like SCOTUS decisions, they rail against "unelected judges legislating from the bench", but for things they like, it's all good?).

    7. Re:Oil Glut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That is bullshit. The court didn't make any law. It ruled that the campaign finance reform law that restricted corporate spending in campaign advertising was unjust in part because it only restricted spending X number of days prior to an election and only restricted certain groups, but not others. The idea that corporations were a person under the law isn't anything new either...that precedent goes back to the 1800s.

    8. Re:Oil Glut by Firethorn · · Score: 2

      and tesla happens to be the biggest name in EVs right now.

      Nissan actually sells more EVs though.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    9. Re:Oil Glut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Amendment 1

      Congress shall make NO LAW ... abridging the freedom of speech

      McCain-Feingold CFR (Law overturned in Citizens United)
      Electioneering Communications (Issue Ads) Outlaw of issue ads on TV or radio

      communication is distributed during a specific time period before an election - within 30 days prior to a primary election or 60 days prior to a general election

      Prevents, me as an individual, from distributing any support for a candidate of my choice within 60 days of an election, 30 days of a primary. Nothing about corporations, nothing about money, nothing about anything you said. It outlaws me from putting on an ad about an issue that I myself paid for on TV or radio.

      You support censorship of specifically political speech, just because you disagree with it. I put up the facts, you put up nothing. I'm calling you out for being an oppressor of the middle class people that you think shouldn't be allowed to have a say or probably even be allowed to vote. Liberals make me sick.

    10. Re:Oil Glut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A post full of utter nonsense, especially re: Citizen's united, which nakedly subverts democracy by allowing a massive influx of unaccounted money into the already distorted political process. If you were actually for the middle class and poor, you should be vociferously against that awful SCOTUS-made law, which reduces the influence of the people in the political process. (Why is it that when pseudo-conservatives (note the Republican party of today or the Tea Party, aren't exactly your goldwater or even Reagan conservatives) don't like SCOTUS decisions, they rail against "unelected judges legislating from the bench", but for things they like, it's all good?).

      Unaccounted-for money?

      The biggest donors to political campaigns GIVE TO DEMOCRATS

      1 Service Employees International Union $224,273,550 $222,520,804 $1,294,169 99% 1%
      2 ActBlue $194,439,211 $193,985,073 $59,727 100% 0%
      3 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $94,708,977 $93,739,954 $671,755 99% 1%
      4 National Education Assn $93,656,468 $89,590,047 $3,192,344 97% 3%

      That's HALF A BILLION DOLLARS TO DEMOCRATS.

      You ignorant, hypocritical JACKASS.

    11. Re:Oil Glut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Way to deflect and distract, moronic liar. CU instigated so-called political action committees or SuperPACs, which can hide behind layers of corporate veils. SuperPACs which do not disclose identities of contributors, aka "Dark Money", inject vast sums into the political process and, to quote this article (sources cited)

      In the 2012 election cycle, more than $308 million in dark money was spent, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.[10] An estimated 86 percent was spent by conservative groups, 11 percent by liberal groups and 3 percent by other groups.[10] The three dark money groups which spent the largest sums were Karl Rove's American Crossroads/Crossroads GPS ($71 million), the Koch brothers' Americans for Prosperity ($36 million) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ($35 million), all conservative groups.[10][11] The three liberal groups with the largest dark-money expenditures were the League of Conservation Voters ($11 million), Patriot Majority USA, a group focusing on public schools and infrastructure ($7 million), and Planned Parenthood (almost $7 million).[10]

      Since you appear to be reading comprehension challenged, let me rephrase that in simpler terms: Dark Money== Overwhelmingly Republican.

      Plus those unions you mentioned? Their members are middle/lower class...the same people you purport to be for if you're the other poster.

      I will stoop to your level with a: LIAR!

    12. Re:Oil Glut by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      What's your point ?
      Liberals want NO politicians bribed in ANY parties.

      That democratic politicians are not on the same page as their voters is hardly an unusual event in politics, which also accounts for a lot of Sander's support - as he is the only candidate who actively campaigns AGAINST the influence of the rich on politics for EITHER party.

      No. Trump doesn't count. Trump IS the rich. He is NOT defending the middle class from rich people buying government favours -he's cutting out the middle man and trying to just buy himself a government.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  3. The oil companies don't give a shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're gonna be in this glut until '18 or even longer by the looks of things. The offshore drillers are sucking wind big time - they are scrapping rigs, begging banks for restructuring and some may be out of business soon.

    This was a not a very big victory for the Obama administration because not too many folks were fighting for those rights. They have bigger worries now, Besides, we're gonna have a new POTUS in '18 or whenever the glut breaks. So, yawn, this is just a feel good story for the Democrats and Environmentalists.

    1. Re:The oil companies don't give a shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is most likely that entrenched interests preferred those rigs not be built. Obama looks like a global warming hero and existing suppliers don't have to deal with yet more competition in a gutted market.

    2. Re:The oil companies don't give a shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because there is a glut now, it doesn't mean that the Dept of Interior can't auction off leases now that a company can use later when the demand is higher.

    3. Re:The oil companies don't give a shit. by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Let's hang onto them until Saudi Arabia runs out of oil in a couple of centuries. Think what they'll be worth then.

    4. Re:The oil companies don't give a shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are at world over-production of between 1% and 2% in oil. That's why the prices have dropped like rocks. There is more oil than buyers, and it isn't due to conservation or renewable energy, world oil consumption is up. The world is just producing more oil than it cares to burn at the moment.

      This means that bringing another oil field / oil rig online is like pouring oil on the fire of disappearing oil-related jobs. Sure it will keep a few roughnecks employed for a few months, perhaps even a year, but it will crush the oil services industry, and drive the price of oil even lower.

      Halliburton has laid of 12% last year, and >8% so far this year (probably 35% overall, because they don't count contractors). Schlumberger is in the same boat. I know more deep water geophysicists that are out of a job than you can imagine. Sales for oil exploration software is down hard. Entire cementing divisions are gone. It is really, really bad.

      And someone is going to act like it's some back-handed inside deal to keep these leases off the market. It isn't, if these leases go on the market, some oil company will drill it anyway, to eek out a razor thin profit at the cost of keeping the entire industry in the shitter.

      Obama's actions are likely to serve the self-interest of the country (and all the oil companies in the USA at the same time), as if the price of oil drops below $30 a barrel, companies that have already laid off 30% to 60% of their workforce will likely go bankrupt. Big oil is big money, but imagine if that "big" money was attached to a company with lots of too-cheap-to-profit oil. It wouldn't be pretty.

    5. Re:The oil companies don't give a shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So is anyone supposed to be upset that the oil exploration business is joining the race to the bottom? All the mill workers, steel workers, and other poor schlubs who have lost their jobs that paid less than what people are/were making in the oil business are crying tears for you.

      Face it, the value of human labor is declining, and the trend can claim anyone. The real sham here is that oil prices dropped to less than 1/3rd their recent peak, and yet the price of many products that are heavily affected by energy/transportation costs did not drop with it. And plastics/polymers? Why aren't those prices coming down, driving down the price of consumer-grade packaging?

      Between the packaging and the transport costs, food prices should have plummeted, and yet . . .

  4. Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas

      Gas prices are lower today than they were during the Bush Administration.

      You stupid sonofabitch.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      You'd do better to worry about the price of health care. That's what's skyrocketing. When we get cancer from all that pollution it'll take every dime I have to make my co-payments.

    3. Re:Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And didn't Obama promise to raise the price of gas and lower the price of healthcare? Gee, you might almost think he was completely incompetent at anything besides campaigning...

    4. Re:Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas

      Gas prices are lower today than they were during the Bush Administration.

      You stupid sonofabitch.

      I'm pretty sure you've been bitch-slapped over this issue before, so here it goes again:

      Chu: DOE working to wean U.S. off oil

      “We agree there is great suffering when the price of gasoline increases in the United States, and so we are very concerned about this,” said Chu, speaking to the House Appropriations energy and water subcommittee. “As I have repeatedly said, in the Department of Energy, what we’re trying to do is diversify our energy supply for transportation so that we have cost-effective means.”

      Chu specifically cited a reported breakthrough announced Monday by Envia Systems, which received funding from DOE’s ARPA-E, that could help slash the price of electric vehicle batteries.

      He also touted natural gas as “great” and said DOE is researching how to reduce the cost of compressed natural gas tanks for vehicles.

      High gasoline prices will make research into such alternatives more urgent, Chu said.

      “But is the overall goal to get our price” of gasoline down, asked Nunnelee.

      “No, the overall goal is to decrease our dependency on oil, to build and strengthen our economy,” Chu replied.

      So when the price of gas was $4/gal and higher, Obama had ZERO interest in trying to lower gas prices.

      Now you're here trying to give credit to Obama for lower gas prices? Calling you dumb as a post would be an insult to every acorn with dreams of being buried, sprouting, growing up, getting cut down, and then sawed into a post, you stupid dumbfuck.

      Any unlike you, I back up my claims with cites from actual Obama Administration officials who implement his policies.

      So STFU.

    5. Re:Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

      So, what you're saying is, the fact that gas prices are lower today is PROOF that Obama's been trying to raise gas prices?

      I'm surprised you have the brains to draw breath.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      People don't pick their President for his competence. It's all based on salesmanship.

    7. Re:Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what you're saying is, the fact that gas prices are lower today is PROOF that Obama's been trying to raise gas prices?

      I'm surprised you have the brains to draw breath.

      No, your moron. The prices went down DESPITE Obama's efforts. I just DOCUMENTED the efforts, and thus SUPPORTED my claim. Something both of your incommunicado brain cells will never figure out how to do.

      Dude, Obama just fucked it up, like he fucked up Libya, like he fucked up Syria, like he fucked negotiations with Iran, like he fucked up relations with Russia.

      Just face it: your boy is so fucking incompetent he can't even manage to drive gas prices higher despite doing every energy-extraction-related thing he can. Such as opposing Keystone, blocking fracking, and this very story about suddenly deciding to block oil drilling.

      But you're too damn stupid so see it.

    8. Re:Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas by hondo77 · · Score: 0

      Such as opposing Keystone, blocking fracking, and this very story about suddenly deciding to block oil drilling.

      So, despite Obama supposedly doing all those things to drive prices up, they went down, right? That means his positions on those issues were correct because they weren't needed to bring gas prices down. Thanks for your well-documented proof.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    9. Re:Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The price of health care has been skyrocketing for a long time. The ACA is, among other things, causing more competition for health insurance plans, which has some possibility of restraining the increase.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such as opposing Keystone, blocking fracking, and this very story about suddenly deciding to block oil drilling.

      So, despite Obama supposedly doing all those things to drive prices up, they went down, right? That means his positions on those issues were correct because they weren't needed to bring gas prices down. Thanks for your well-documented proof.

      Were you born stupid or do you just play a moron on TV?

      If you accept that gas prices should be low because high gas prices are a regressive tax on the poor, Obama's stated policy of driving gas prices higher is poor policy.

      If you think gas prices should be high - for whatever reason - the fact is that gas prices have fallen despite Obama's policies.

      Take your pick - poor policy or failed implementation.

      Either way, Obama's stated policy has always been clear - high gas prices.

    11. Re:Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      You haven't read up on how that's working out I take it? As Pelosi said, we had to pass it to find out what's in it. Now we're finding out. One company in particular has started working the system in many States to virtually take over. People, especially younger people, have started to figure out that they are better off to pay the penalty as it saves them many thousands of dollars. If they get something really bad they can always pick it up later. They need a lot more subsidies than they thought. A whole lot more. I don't think they're going to find the money for that anytime soon. Another couple of years and we'll pretty much have the whole story. I guess Hillary will get to fix it. Should be fun watching her work with a Republican congress.

    12. Re:Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      It's a big change. Obviously, there's going to be ways to game it at first. Obviously, the ACA needs to change in various unpredictable ways, and that was clear well before it passed.

      However, the Republican-controlled Congress much prefers to pass bill after bill to repeal the whole thing, knowing that they're accomplishing absolutely nothing, to working to improve the situation. I've never seen a Congressional group so proud of doing absolutely nothing but whining.

      Congress isn't going to be controlled by Republicans forever, even with their superior gerrymandering technology. The current Republican party is unsustainable, and it can either return to its more moderate roots or get replaced with something.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re:Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I think the obstructionism isn't going anywhere anytime soon. The big problem this year is that many conservative voters feel that their Republican representatives let them down by not doing enough to stop Obamacare. Thus you wind up with Trump. The good old boys that run the party hate him but he's got millions of people voting for him. I know people that registered to vote for the first time in decades just to support him. There's a lot of very pissed off people. Poor republican elites deserted by all their voters/serfs. You know you suck hard when people would rather have a rich, crazy, reality game-show star over you.

    14. Re:Obama: anything to drive up the price of gas by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Another big problem is that the ACA, for all its flaws, has helped a good many people, who think it should be reformed rather than ended. There seems to be this crazy quest for ideological purity going on in the Republican Party, worse than the Democrats around 1970, and a belief that Republicans fail only when they're not extreme enough. The Democrats recovered, and became more reasonable before 1976 even with the problems Nixon caused the Republicans. I don't know about the Republicans. Their rigid ideological rage has lasted a lot longer than it did for the Democrats (who had this problem from maybe about 1966 to 1974).

      That Trump appeals is not because the mainstream Republican candidates aren't right-wing enough, but that the mainstream Republican candidates have lost touch with their supporters in a big way. Trump positioned himself as the alternative, and is reaping the rewards. He had the money to butt in without Party support. If someone way off on the left of the Republican establishment, like maybe Reagan reincarnated, had been in that position instead, the Party would be in much better shape.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  5. No matter how you feel about that topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now is clearly not the time for the public to auction off oil drilling rights. If you're going to do that, you want a good price for them. Sell high, not low.

    1. Re:No matter how you feel about that topic by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      You presume the public prefers paying more for oil so government can collect more money to spend, rather than have lower prices to pay directly from their pockets.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  6. Oil prices by waspleg · · Score: 1

    "recover". Interesting phrasing. Unless you're trading it, it's a resource most of us would like to stay reasonably priced.

    - From a state investigated multiple times for the highest national gas prices for no reason; especially on 9/11.

    1. Re:Oil prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "recover". Interesting phrasing. Unless you're doing virtually anything related to our economy it's a resource most of us would like to stay reasonably priced.

      FTFY.

      Were you asleep for the last two months when the rapid drop in oil prices was threatening to drive us back into another recession?

    2. Re:Oil prices by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It is not about the oil price it is all about fossil fueller share prices. All talk of recovery is talk because there is a solid shift away from fossil fuels, with the result there are more fossil fuels in the ground in reserve than will now ever be needed. So with the bulk of fossil fueller share price based upon the stuff in the ground rather than what they are selling, they are trying really hard to maintain the illusory value of their shares. Lobbyist will be out in force to crush the electric vehicle, well, at least try, same goes for renewable energy sources and of course they will go nuclear on nuclear, attacking any energy source that devalues the stuff left in the ground and desperately trying to prevent billions turning into millions or even, negative millions. All sorts of paid for completely PR=B$ fabricated stories will be released in order to attempt to create the illusion of the long term value of the fossil fuel assets left in the ground. So fluff pieces about developing new resources will abound because of course why invest in new resources without there being long term value in existing resources. They will also strive to kick fossil fuel players out of the market ie Ukraine and cutting of Russian gas supplies in favour of US LNG even with the stupid fracking mess, limiting the reality of that. So who will survive and continue to supply and who will get kicked out of the market to inflate the profits of the survivors. Three most likely to get kicked Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela to favour Canuck tar and US refiners. There is also blocking certain fossil fuels first, coal the first major target, first the low value high pollution coals and then the rest.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    3. Re:Oil prices by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Were you asleep for the last two months when the rapid drop in oil prices was threatening to drive us back into another recession?

      That was all horseshit. Low oil prices never created a threat of recession. Except maybe a recession in the trading accounts of oil speculators and energy companies.

      For everyone else, it was stimulative to the economy to have oil prices low.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    4. Re:Oil prices by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      By 'us' he might mean Russia.

      The propagandists are sunk costs. Might as well post something until they find someone saying something honest about Pootin.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Oil prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can personally attest to it causing a slowdown in the Houston housing market. Basically we have a lot of oil related industry workers that don't have jobs, and aren't going to be needed for years. Many life long oil professionals are now unemployed, they're putting their houses on the market and planning for different careers as WITHOUT the new oil fields, the market is unlikely to recover in under two years.

      So, it's not stimulating the Houston housing market, which employs a heck of a lot of people. It's not stimulating Houston's restaurant economy, because people without jobs (and those who fear losing them) tend to economize. I'm sure it's hurt other sectors too, but I don't deal in speculation. I'll only comment on the sectors I know.

    6. Re:Oil prices by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That depends on where your state gets it's GDP. Manufacturing states, and farming states would be loving it. IT states would be indifferent. Oil producing states however would be feeling it quite badly.

      That said on a global scale a recession is normally correlated with an upward surge in oil prices.

    7. Re:Oil prices by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      So, it's not stimulating the Houston housing market, which employs a heck of a lot of people.

      That's like saying, "There can't be global warming, because it's cold outside today!"

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:Oil prices by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Then you have missed Mario Draghi screaming "deflation".

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    9. Re:Oil prices by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually low commodity prices often have a negative impact on the economy. It is not just the rich oil traders that are hurt but the workers in the oil fields, the people in the towns that sell stuff to the oil field works. The retired people that have oil stocks in 401ks. The people that work in the factories that make the tools used in the oil fields...
      Everything is connected and a crash in the prices in one market will have more than the simplistic effects that you are spouting off.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Oil prices by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      That was all horseshit. Low oil prices never created a threat of recession. Except maybe ...

      Well, here in Oklahoma it has indeed caused a recession, as Oil and gas extraction and processing is our #1 (legal) industry. There are some areas of Texas and Alaska that probably aren't particularly peppy right now either. However, for the country at large you are quite correct.

    11. Re:Oil prices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Low oil price does not drive recession. As clearly demonstrated globally by the oil crisis in the 1970s, it drives the opposite. When prices spike too high it causes recession. *Then* the oil prices collapse because the demand drops, and thus you have a period of time when recession and low oil prices occur simultaneously. You've mixed up the order.

      The only places where low oil price drives recession are economies that are highly dependent on oil production for their economic well-being. Because fluctuations in supply and demand are normal, this is why such economies need to diversify when oil prices are high and put a good fraction of the money aside rather than spend it like a bunch of drunken sailors when the times are good.

    12. Re:Oil prices by dj245 · · Score: 1

      Were you asleep for the last two months when the rapid drop in oil prices was threatening to drive us back into another recession?

      That was all horseshit. Low oil prices never created a threat of recession. Except maybe a recession in the trading accounts of oil speculators and energy companies.

      For everyone else, it was stimulative to the economy to have oil prices low.

      To a point. Several of my friends working in oil and gas lost their jobs. The salaried employees were laid off, and the contract ones typically ran out a contract and could not find a new contract. I saw several posts on Facebook that families were cancelling Christmas (gifts) since they didn't have a job and didn't know when they would have one. Some are in danger of losing their houses, or are already in the process. Even if they had emergency savings, there's only so long that can last.

      Low oil prices are great up until the point where large numbers of jobs are cut. It isn't a crisis for the USA, but a lot of people in the industry, and related industries, have endured hardship over the last year. This has a ripple effect on the communities the workers live in. When you don't know when your next paycheck will be, you don't buy any product or service that isn't absolutely necessary. Even it was a necessary correction, the effect on a lot of working families is not good. That's not something I take lightly.

      Rapid changes in price (upwards or downwards) in a critical and necessary commodity are not good for anyone. I don't hear anyone calling for a discussion on how to dampen or smooth out the boom and bust cycle that oil and gas follows. Now would be a good time to do something, while the pain is on everyone's mind.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    13. Re:Oil prices by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Actually low commodity prices often have a negative impact on the economy. It is not just the rich oil traders that are hurt but the workers in the oil fields, the people in the towns that sell stuff to the oil field works.

      That's the neo-liberal hogwash. Oil field economies are almost always in boom or bust cycles. Prices are prices. Most of the country is not an oil field and if you find retired people with their money in oil stocks, please give them a dope slap for me.

      If what you say is so, then high gas prices should mean a booming economy and we know that's not true.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    14. Re:Oil prices by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Well, here in Oklahoma it has indeed caused a recession,

      Brother, you've got to get out of Oklahoma. It's the worst place in the country. It's so bad that in the 1930s, even the dirt did its best to get out of the state.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    15. Re:Oil prices by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "If what you say is so, then high gas prices should mean a booming economy and we know that's not true."
      Very high gas prices are bad for the economy just as very low prices are. The same is true for all commodities and frankly most systems.
      If the price of a commodity is to low then production drops and you get shortages and then the price goes up and you have inflation and the prices rise.
      If the price of a commodity is to high you will often see a glut of production followed by a market crash.
      "Oil field economies are almost always in boom or bust cycles. Prices are prices."
      Yea and a boom bust cycle helps make a good economic system...
      Exactly when did you get a degree in economics? And frankly calling me a neo-liberal is about the silliest thing I have heard of in a long time.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    16. Re:Oil prices by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Very high gas prices are bad for the economy just as very low prices are.

      Then it's good that we don't have either right now, isn't it?

      Exactly when did you get a degree in economics?

      Economics is the softest of all social sciences. It is little more than political agenda dressed up in sloppy math. Parapsychologists laugh at how ridiculous economists are.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re:Oil prices by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      There are currently more people working in renewable energy industries than in fossil fuel extraction industries in the US.

    18. Re:Oil prices by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Do you have a source for that. And if true is a terrible statement about the practicality of renewables. If true that points to renewables demanding many times the labor costs of fossil fuels.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    19. Re:Oil prices by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      Actually I got it wrong. What I should have said was renewable energy produces more jobs per unit of energy produced than fossil fuel energy. Right now there are probably more people employed in fossil fuels than renewable energy as an absolute number. What do the labor costs matter if they can offer competitive pricing? When you consider the external costs of fossil fuels, renewable energy is very competitive. Renewable energy is still in its infancy or just beyond and I expect it will become labor efficient over time.

    20. Re:Oil prices by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      It is not about the oil price it is all about fossil fueller share prices. All talk of recovery is talk because there is a solid shift away from fossil fuels, with the result there are more fossil fuels in the ground in reserve than will now ever be needed.

      You are making the common error (common, but an error nonetheless) of thinking that the ONLY use for fossil fuels is as a fuel. That has never been the case. Coal was, in addition to being a fuel itself, also a source of "coal tar," on which the 19th century chemical industry (dyes, fertilisers, paints, drugs - look up the history of quinine and "mauve") was established. In the 20th century a lot of that was shifted to byproducts of the processing of oil. And more recently of gas. And the production of plastics is seriously dependent on oil consumption. (Including, for an example, the epoxy resins that bind together the carbon fibres in what is still inaccurately called "carbon fibre")

      A project I've been involved with (shot in the back of the head as the oil price dropped below $50/bbl) was to produce a waxy crude from an otherwise uneconomic field for direct piping into a chemical manufacture plant. The well is now uneconomic, so the manufacturing plant (Indian-owned, I think) is buying in it's feedstock from a foreign power station burning American coal displaced from America by fracked-gas (which also lifts at about $50/bbl oil equivalent).

      In the 1930s, chemists were saying "oil is too good to burn." If burning oil (including in cars) stopped tomorrow, then drilling and pumping oil would continue, to supply long chains of carbon atoms to the chemical industry. Because making those chains by other methods (e.g. Friedel-Krafts reaction) is horribly expensive (in terms of MJ/kg and $/lb) and inefficient compared to using oil. Oil remains too good to burn.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    21. Re:Oil prices by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Our refuse can supply that market and only the very cheapest, oil fields will survive but their share price will be a small fraction of what it is today and the rest will go bankrupt, the bulk of them will go bankrupt (because we eat organic products and poop carbon and various other waste products). We stop burning fossil fuels and we need a huge amount less of fossil fuels and supply and demand will technically bankrupt them all even the cheapest producers will go under due to current over valuation and debt, but the cheapest will be picked up out of the bankruptcy bin and brought back to life. Right now, there is just a whole bunch of corrupt collusion to socialise those losses via government and pension funds. This will fail and corrupt individuals will exposed and pay huge penalties.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    22. Re:Oil prices by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "What do the labor costs matter if they can offer competitive pricing? "
      That is the issue, it doesn't. Natural gas is a lot cheaper.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    23. Re:Oil prices by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      This will succeed and corrupt individuals will exposed and will be paid huge bonuses.

      Sorry, you seem to be viewing the world through some extremely rose-tinted spectacles.

      By the way, your parents lied to you about Santa Claus. He doesn't exist. Sorry to break the news like this.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  7. And why would he? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are they even applying for oil drilling permits if the price is at historic lows?

    1. Re:And why would he? by Nutria · · Score: 2

      The oil companies want to buy the leases now while they're cheap.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    2. Re:And why would he? by Woldscum · · Score: 1

      The oil companies want to buy the leases now while they're cheap.

      Leases are auctioned off just like FCC spectrum auctions. Buy at auction and sit on them for years until needed.

  8. Why would the US Military oppose this? by Nutria · · Score: 1

    After all, it's another local source of fuel for their stuff.

    --
    "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    1. Re:Why would the US Military oppose this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is also a possible way to get cut off from your Army running in wartime and a large cost.

      It makes sense at the moment to not 'drill baby drill'. The prices do not support it. But they may again in the future.

    2. Re:Why would the US Military oppose this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are going non-fossil in the long term, but the main causes for objection might be the listening networks, training grounds and the increase in obligations for safety and security.

    3. Re:Why would the US Military oppose this? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      (1) They may have underwater things out there, or worry they provide cover to enemy subs

      (2) Because if it's dug up now, it gets used up. If it's underwater, we can start digging it up when the giant war starts. Because, who cares where the oil is dug up (militarily) during peace? We can get it from trade. But during war, that's when we need it.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    4. Re:Why would the US Military oppose this? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Lease letting, exploration, drilling and pipeline don't happen overnight. If you want it ready for a war, then all that stuff (especially the exploration and pipe laying) needs to be done beforehand.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    5. Re:Why would the US Military oppose this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the Strategic Reserve covers the immediate need situation. Next step is expansion of new local production. No need to waste that now.

    6. Re:Why would the US Military oppose this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all, it's another local source of fuel for their stuff.

      Among other reasons, they don't want anyone near this:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Submarine_Base_Kings_Bay

    7. Re:Why would the US Military oppose this? by blindseer · · Score: 2

      "(2) Because if it's dug up now, it gets used up. If it's underwater, we can start digging it up when the giant war starts. Because, who cares where the oil is dug up (militarily) during peace? We can get it from trade. But during war, that's when we need it."

      If a war starts then it's too late to go drilling for oil. What do these ships that go drilling for oil run on? That's right, oil. If there is a shortage of oil then it could be real hard to find the oil to go looking for more oil. We need those wells drilled before a war starts. It's not like these wells can produce oil immediately, they need to be drilled first and how long does that take?

      I remember people telling me years ago that we should not be drilling in ANWR because in the five years it takes to get the oil that oil could be worthless. What happened five years later? Oil hit record high prices. So, instead of Americans making money on that oil and adding to our economy we saw our economy take a hit, both from high oil prices and then again because we were shipping those dollars out of the country.

      If it takes five years for a well in ANWR to produce, which is on flat and dry ground, then how long would it take to drill a well out in the ocean where the ground isn't so flat and dry?

      If the goal is to have a reserve of oil in case of war then we need to drill now or that reserve could be closed off from us before we can get it.

      Also, if there is a war then what do you suppose people would be fighting over? Could that war be over oil? Seems to me that one way to prevent that war in the first place is to make sure people are warm, fed, and comfortable. Plentiful energy seems to make that happen.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    8. Re:Why would the US Military oppose this? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      The military has a strategic reserve to bide them over til the North Atlantic fields come online. And we can start developing them as a crisis develops.

      It'll take a lot less time than ANWR to get up and running. ANWR has freezing temperatures reducing the worktime to 1/5 of the year and limited human access during that time. Plus new pipelines and such.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re:Why would the US Military oppose this? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      The US military is also working hard to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels.

    10. Re:Why would the US Military oppose this? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      What do these ships that go drilling for oil run on? That's right, oil. If there is a shortage of oil then it could be real hard to find the oil to go looking for more oil.

      I get the feeling that you're an American, and therefore don't have any recent family memories of "rationing," where the government gives each citizen a monthly allotment of vouchers for bread, eggs, milk, meat, sugar, coal, petrol, etc and if you use up your monthly "ration" of any of these goods ... well, that's it - you don't get any more (or go to the black market).

      Rationing is how the British survived against Hilter. It's what kept the navy at sea and the RAF in the skies as the bombs rained down. It also kept the U-boats in the Atlantic, and the Imperial Fleet on a conquest spree across the Pacific. did America have rationing? I don't know. But it's the first thing governments introduce in resource-shortages, such as war. Rationing in Britain ended in about 1956, and I can remember the fear of water rationing being introduced in the "blazing summer" of 1976.

      In the event of a war, the fuel for "critical industries" would be found.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  9. no pay, no way by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    wait until another day.

  10. way to grow a SET. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Righton, Someone steps up with a huge SET and sez, go for it..

    Way to grow various Sets, Obama Adminisatration.

    With Prices so low, obviously signalling a "glut" of oil in the market, why the heck would we want more?

    It's just big business staying alive at the expense of others..

    For no obvious reason..
    stoopid

  11. Wait for Trump by hooiberg · · Score: 1

    He will 'fix' this.

    1. Re:Wait for Trump by supremebob · · Score: 2

      If he's smart, he'd wait until the price of oil to recover so he can sell those drilling rights for a higher price.

      I think that both Democrats and Republicans alike would agree that drilling for more oil now in the middle of a supply glut is a bad idea.

    2. Re:Wait for Trump by hooiberg · · Score: 1

      Trump... Smart.... *snigger*

    3. Re:Wait for Trump by harrkev · · Score: 2

      You can call Trump a lot of things, but dumb is not one of them.

      You do not succeed in businesses without having some smarts.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    4. Re:Wait for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The time to invest in new oil rigs is when the price is low, not high. So no, not really.

    5. Re:Wait for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, you can't use that word, only WE can use that word!

      Check your privilege.

    6. Re:Wait for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't fool yourself, for everything that Obama signs off on he signs something else that works the other end of the spectrum. It's just unfortunate that we don't have a media that covers these things fairly or you'd see that they all feed you the same shit sandwich.... you're just too much of a fanboy to notice the difference.

    7. Re:Wait for Trump by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      I think that both Democrats and Republicans alike would agree that drilling for more oil now in the middle of a supply glut is a bad idea.

      Keeping the glut going keeps gas princes low.
      That gets votes, even though the two are not related really.

    8. Re:Wait for Trump by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 0

      True. He's not stupid. He just panders to stupid people.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    9. Re:Wait for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He never really "succeeded" in any business. His fortune is less than it would be if he had simply invested his $30 million inheritance conservatively. All of his ~businesses~ have in some form either run into bankruptcy or turned into pop entertainment with limited value.

    10. Re:Wait for Trump by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      If you believe that, invest in oil field services companies. Their stocks are in the toilet right now.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:Wait for Trump by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Insightful

      True. He's not stupid. He just panders to stupid people.

      And there's the ivory tower elitist thinking that they know all about how people are voting, and the reason why. Useful tip: You're the reason why people are voting for Trump.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    12. Re:Wait for Trump by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      I'm the reason people are stupid? OK there guy.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    13. Re:Wait for Trump by dbIII · · Score: 1

      He had the "smarts" to fail four times but Daddy's money plus well connected friends got him out of the hole and away from angry investors each time.
      You can succeed in property development and seedy casino deals without much intelligence if you have the resources to stop a well deserved kick to the backside from reality that should be hard enough to "smart" every time you sit down.

    14. Re:Wait for Trump by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      I'd go with arrogant, boisterous, bombastic, argumentative, privileged, ruthless, uncompromising, hateful, bullying, and pandering. Smart? Not really. Mix all the former in with a wealthy family and some luck and you don't need to be smart. Like you said, not dumb is good enough.

    15. Re:Wait for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but Trump hasn't succeeded in business in the last 30 years. When he did, it was because he wrote contracts where the investors took all the risk, and he was assured of his profit regardless of success.

      Now most investors aren't fooled by such contracts, so that's why Trump hasn't built a building in forever. Instead he hosts television shows where he talks about his success, but it's looking more like ancient history every day. Even some economists indicate that if Trump invested in the DOW Jones Index, he'd have a lot more money than he has "earned" through his real-estate empire.

      And where does Trump personally identify the source of most of his net worth? By his own admission, he values his NAME as being more valuable than his other assets. If that's not a bubble that's ready to pop, I don't know what is.

      He's not stupid, but he isn't smart in the areas he's professing to be a genius in either.

    16. Re:Wait for Trump by Mashiki · · Score: 1, Troll

      I'm the reason people are stupid? OK there guy.

      Two posts, and you've successfully proven the "I know what's best, and if you don't listen you're stupid/people are just stupid" line of thinking. Yeah that's not backing firing at all, and why there's a growing general disdain to: political elite, academia, ideologues, sjw's and those crowing about "social justice." And people turning around and saying e-fucking-nough.

      Hey you know that vote in Florida? The one where all the pollsters said that Trump wouldn't win...

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    17. Re:Wait for Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump can't win a party that opposes him, even if he taps into some of the disparate parts. Also, enjoy your herpes and death from the flu, since you hate education so much you must hate its products as well which include modern medicine.

    18. Re:Wait for Trump by KGIII · · Score: 1

      I've done some recent financial moves that are putting money into a few of those companies. I am not a short-term investor. I have every reason to believe the prices will skyrocket again - and I've got the patience to wait and no need for the money in the interim. They'll likely made huge, huge jumps and I expect it to be quite profitable.

      It's akin to my rooting for VW's stock to tank even further. I'm hoping for the other foot to drop with VW and, when that happens, I'll buy a bunch of shares and hold them until they return to normal.

      It's been a remarkably lucrative investment strategy. I've explained it in more detail in the past but it's made me a mint.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    19. Re:Wait for Trump by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      What the GP says is correct, he panders to idiots. You may vote for him for other reasons, but his campaign is aimed at idiots who think they can kick all Muslims out or that their lives are being ruined by political correctness.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:Wait for Trump by jbengt · · Score: 1

      I'll Fix That For Him:
      The time to invest in new oil rigs is when the price is low, just before they start going back up.

      Unfortunatley, the more companies think the price is going to go up, the more investments in new oil rigs there'll be, and the more new oil rigs there are, the lower the prices will be.

    21. Re:Wait for Trump by DogDude · · Score: 1

      ivory tower elitist

      That phrase, like a jesus fish on the back of a car, is, to me, the marker of an idiot.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    22. Re:Wait for Trump by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      You can call Trump a lot of things, but dumb is not one of them.

      You do not succeed in businesses without having some smarts.

      Not exactly true. Many smart people do not succeed in businesses or lives. Some dumb people do succeed in live (but may not in business). You don't need to be smart, just average. Most of the time, you need to be at the right place at the right time (luck may be?).

    23. Re:Wait for Trump by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Trump can't win a party that opposes him, even if he taps into some of the disparate parts. Also, enjoy your herpes and death from the flu, since you hate education so much you must hate its products as well which include modern medicine.

      I'm always glad when some brainless ideologue get's their panties in a twist and makes baseless assumptions. It's a shame, you should have actually posted with your actual account.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    24. Re:Wait for Trump by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      What the GP says is correct, he panders to idiots. You may vote for him for other reasons, but his campaign is aimed at idiots who think they can kick all Muslims out or that their lives are being ruined by political correctness.

      So I guess that means Hillary is pandering to the mentally retarded? And her campaign is aimed at allowing unfettered access across the border, as well as ensuring that H1B's rule the day. But considering the number of people who believe that political correctness(or only their speech) is the only way that's allowed I guess so. Especially after the events of moveon.org and her support of shouting down other people.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    25. Re:Wait for Trump by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Sometimes you read a comment that's just so foaming-at-the-mouth raving batshit that you realize instantly there is no point even trying to reason with this person. Their mind is closed by rage.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  12. Vote mdsolar down in the firehouse... by delt0r · · Score: 1

    I am sick of his self voted shit articles every 10 fucking mins. If its mdsolar it's shit.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    1. Re:Vote mdsolar down in the firehouse... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      OK guy who avoided a 7 digit ID by like 607 accounts. We'll all sure take directions from you.

      Here's an idea. If you don't like a story, don't fucking READ it. No one is holding a gun to your head.

      Holy fucking shit, is everyone this retarded?

      The idiotic holy war against Timothy has been going on since back when Cmdr. Taco was around. Didn't work on him, won't work on anyone.

      Accept that not every story is going to be your cup of tea and fucking move on, like an adult. It's not like you can't look at the summary and figure it out.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    2. Re:Vote mdsolar down in the firehouse... by delt0r · · Score: 0

      Apparently you are that retarded, using user id as a credential. Is that you mdsolar? It is isn't it.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    3. Re:Vote mdsolar down in the firehouse... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      No, most people here use UID's as credentials, because by the time they've been around awhile they know that people with low UID's know what they're actually talking about.

      Something that's forgotten quite often is that back in it's day, people who have a sub 200k UID usually know what they're talking about, since the site itself was built for them.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:Vote mdsolar down in the firehouse... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      That part was actually a joke. The user ID thing is a joke that has been going on for a while.

      The rest was totally serious though.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    5. Re:Vote mdsolar down in the firehouse... by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 1

      I was told it was 5 digit and down, but you tell yourself whatever you like, sweetie.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    6. Re:Vote mdsolar down in the firehouse... by Jzanu+Syr · · Score: 1

      Saying 5 digits leaves it within the first year or so of slashdot existing, back when accounts were thrown away like rubbish. Things change.

  13. coastal residents NIMBYs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "coastal residents". That says it all. Owners of expensive beach front property don't want to risk any oil spills. I guess they can pin the blame on Obama. Frankly, I'd have a special tax for beach front property and scenic views.

    1. Re:coastal residents NIMBYs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm from Georgia and used to own a beach house here and my folks had one on Hilton head.

      You are correct, most of us would not be happy, not happy at all, if there were oil spills on our beach.

      But that is NOT why we have a problem with oil exploration. It's about the beach we don't live on.
      Very little of Georgia's coast has any development at all.
      Most of the coastal ocean-front islands are owned by the state and are nearly in their original pre-columbian state - access only by boat and no paved roads. There is very little untouched land left like this on the coast of the USA, and it would be heart-breaking if it got oiled up.

      Personally, I think it's less about oil and more about the Obama administration once again thumbing their nose at South in revenge for voting Republican.

  14. Typical Obama logic by jacob8404 · · Score: 0, Troll

    This is the leftist worldview at work. In their world, energy *should* be expensive, living standard should be lower, the ultimate goal of any nation should be to be "green", not prosperity or the pursuit of happiness. Politicians who adhere to this ideology consider themselves to be accountable to {the UN|Greenpeace|"the planet"}, never to the constituents who elected them. Indeed Obama and his New-Age pals in virtually every First World country believe that a good government is one that manages to overcome (or ignore) the opposition of its own population in the pursuit of Agenda 21.

    1. Re:Typical Obama logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Atlantic drilling will only damage the coastal economies dependent on tourism and fishing. Atlantic drilling will have no impact on crude oil prices for decades due to the time it takes to create facilities, and even then will be subject to the same futures speculation that drives prices up long before its refined to petrol.

    2. Re:Typical Obama logic by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Don't sweat it, the oil's not going anywhere. If we need it then we have it available. Let's suck Saudi Arabia dry first, it's cheaper.

    3. Re:Typical Obama logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bingo... why is it conservatives never consider the next generation. Don't they have children.

    4. Re:Typical Obama logic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not, there isn't even much oil there in the first place.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_drilling_on_the_Atlantic_coast_of_the_United_States

      Every time the taxpayer has given subsidies to explore for it there, they haven't found it. So, it was a no-brainer with the current oil market, and the need to reduce the amount of oil we buy that this was prevented from happening.

    5. Re:Typical Obama logic by jacob8404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh right, think-of-the-children, I forgot that :D

      But the fact is that to the contrary, I do care about the next generations: I want them to enjoy a prosperous, stable society with a small government and a high quality of life. I don't want them to live wondering how it must have been once upon a time in the early 21st century when energy was cheap and widely available, which, and nothing else, allowed people to have their own detached homes, travel without restrictions and have a life expectancy approaching 80 years.

      Admittedly, all analogies are flawed, but still - when the first railways were built in 19 century Britain, they attracted very vocal opposition due to their perceived negative effect on society, their alleged unsustainability (it was a "scientific fact" that coal would only last for 20 years or so) and, yes, their genuine environmental impact. No-one at the time could imagine that one century later, we would have electric HSTs which would suffer from none of these problems while being much faster, much cheaper, much safer and much more frequent. Yet the development of coal-powered steam locomotives allowed the advent of precisely that. Today, the green progressives' attitude is similar to the then-opponents, who lobbied to limit the number of trains and force them to run slower.

      In other words, of course one day oil will become irrelevant - but not because of green social engineering, or because we will use something greener. It will be because we will use something superior. I for one wish the next generations will be able to take advantage of it and I am infinitely grateful to our ancestors that they did NOT think of the future generations when they learned to use fire.

    6. Re:Typical Obama logic by blindseer · · Score: 1

      "In other words, of course one day oil will become irrelevant - but not because of green social engineering, or because we will use something greener. It will be because we will use something superior."

      Just like the Stone Age didn't end out of a lack of stones.

      Government actions that make oil use expensive will not bring a swifter end to the "oil age", quite the opposite really. Expensive energy makes it more difficult to find alternatives. Research into new technologies needs resources, and those resources become more difficult to obtain with expensive energy.

      If people want to see an end to oil then we need an economy that is wealthy enough and free enough to invest in alternatives. Preventing oil drilling, carbon taxes, energy subsidies, does not help. What helps is cheap energy. Cheap energy does not come from a government fiat.

      What does seem to help is competition. If wind and solar don't see oil as a competitor then they won't see the market pressures to lower prices. They'll become just as expensive as oil because that is how a free market works. If we want to see a future without oil then we need the resources to get there, and for the foreseeable future that means we need oil.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    7. Re:Typical Obama logic by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Wow. You're a special one, aren't you? How does one get like you, exactly?

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    8. Re:Typical Obama logic by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Really? If we have two substitutable goods, X and Y, in a market, and the price of X goes up, more Y will be produced and sold. Very simple microeconomics. Therefore, if we have fossil fuel energy and non-fossil-fuel energy in the energy market, and the price of fossil fuel energy goes up, then more non-fossil-fuel energy will be produced and sold. The only way for this to fail is if the price increase in X paralyzes or destroys the economy, and if it's that potentially devastating we have excellent reason to reduce our dependence on X; or I suppose if there's a hard limit on Y, which is obviously false in this case. (Hydropower is pretty well tapped out, in that the places where we can reasonably get it are already in use, and using it elsewhere would be more expensive, but there's other non-fossil-fuel energy sources.)

      Increasing the production of Y will generally reduce the unit price of Y, due to economies of scale and such things. Further, since non-fossil-fuel energy covers a whole lot of sources, there will be plenty of competition in it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re:Typical Obama logic by blindseer · · Score: 1

      I saw a talk by a physicist/chemist that was working on new battery technologies. A very smart man, had a doctorate in his field, doing research on solid state physics. He explained that to do his research he needed to use equipment that took a lot of power, X-ray machines and such. This takes energy and money. The people that work in his lab needed to get paid or they will move on to other work. He said he'd do things like switch off the lights at the breaker box at the end of the day so that they'd kill off any "vampire loads" that would use up his electricity budget. It's going to take a lot of LED lighting to make up for the power used by that X-ray machine.

      If energy prices go up then a lot of people like him will see their budget going to keep the lights on instead of hiring very smart graduate students and lab technicians. The margins on this are very thin like they are in any research endeavor. I have no doubt in my mind that his experience is not unique. If we don't keep energy cheap then this physicist can't do his research, we stay in an energy "stone age" and we end up burning oil longer than we should.

      Another thing he pointed out in his talk is that tings just don't improve because time passes, it also takes effort and money. If you want to see something replace oil then we need to have the money to do so. Raising energy prices reduces the money that is available for such things. This is not just because it costs more money to pay the light bill but also because an economy hindered with high energy prices generally does not have the money to spare on research.

      As you point out hydro power has peaked, we just can't build more dams to get more energy. The windmill and solar power industry is being propped up by subsidies from an economy that runs on oil. There are two ways out of this that I see, more research in alternative energy, or building more nuclear power. If we assume that nuclear power is bad and should be abandoned then we need money for research in alternatives.

      I'm okay with building more nuclear power but many are not. Cutting ourselves off from oil before we have an alternative that is just as inexpensive and plentiful is asking for an economic disaster. It would also likely result in an environmental disaster. If you want to see the planet stripped of its trees then cut off oil and wait for one winter to pass.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    10. Re:Typical Obama logic by jacob8404 · · Score: 0

      We are not talking products but technologies. Technology X is cheap and efficient. Technology Y is expensive and ineffective, so much so that it has currently no advantages whatsoever and is unsellable on its own merits. Green advocates want to tax technology X to make it less competitive in the hope that people will buy more of Y instead. Not only is this dumb by itself, but they also fail to understand that X defines the baseline price in the market. By raising that price, there will be less pressure on Y to improve and even if/when such an improvement becomes possible, it will not happen because there will be no incentive to ever become cheaper than X. In short, by arbitrarily taxing the cheapest energy source available for no reason other than to make it artificially expensive, you only make sure that ALL energy will be more expensive. Game over.

    11. Re:Typical Obama logic by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We're not at a subsistence economy. We have money for plenty of luxuries, and we've demonstrated that modern economies are very resilient to slow changes. Raising the cost of fossil fuels, and returning that money to the economy in other ways, doesn't affect the economy much, and we'd still have lots of money to spend on things like research. If our economy was anywhere near as sensitive to energy costs as you seem to think, it would have been devastated at various times in the last few decades.

      And, yes, things take effort and money. Effort costs money. This means that we need to spend money on alternative energy research, and there are two ways to do this: have the government allocate it, or encourage the market to come up with it. If fossil fuels remain cheap, nobody's going to spend much money to get us off them in search of a profit.

      Do you really think the intent is to cut off oil now? The intent is to cut down on use, and to create an economic climate that favors alternative energy development.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re:Typical Obama logic by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Technology X is cheap because we aren't counting all the costs. Technology Y is maturing, but not yet mature, and is becoming cheaper and more efficient. I want to tax X partly in order to encourage the development of Y, and partly to allow the market to handle the unknown but probably frightening costs we're not billing Technology X for.

      Do you really think Technology Y is one technology, and that there's no competition there? Do you really think that energy prices will be pinned forever above the currently billed costs of coal energy?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  15. Well Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is currently no need for any offshore drilling. Remember that the Deepwater Horizon oil spill happened because BP was CLOSING that well (and others) since they did not want its production to further depress oil prices. Now that these greedy bastards have figured out a loophole in the law that prevented them from selling crude oil outside the US, they want to pump it all out now. That way they can ship it out of the country, store it for a couple of years until the price rebounds, process it in foreign refineries and sell it back to US are greatly inflated prices.

  16. With the Saudi's dumping oil by p51d007 · · Score: 1

    On a globally depressed economy, the price dropped like a rock to the point it's cheaper to leave U.S. domestic oil where it is. Let the sand people pump out their oil. When the price goes back up again, then it will be profitable to pump out our oil to bring the price back down. It's already gone up here in Missouri. Less than 2 months ago, we were paying $1.18 per gallon and now it is running $1.79 per gallon. Of course the oil refineries say it's because of the shutdown to change out the winter blend to the summer blend fuel LMAO. The shale oil industry took a hit when the price fell, but, the price will be back up to around 3 bucks a gallon by the end of this year, so they can gear up to pump the oil out of the Dakota's again if needed.

  17. No Worrys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    12-months from now the next President will open the East, Southeast, West and Arctic coast up for bidding on drilling and exploring rights.

    And the price per barrel oil will be in the $55 to $65 range.

    Hah

  18. President Obama by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    Has done a good thing here. It is time to keep oil prices low by shifting to more fuel efficient cars, electric cars, and eliminating home heating oil use. No need for more drilling, just keep it difficult for the Saudis to cut production.

    1. Re:President Obama by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      doesn't work that way, when economy picks up the oil will flow.

      Electric cars are expensive toy for the wear-the-nails crown; not priced for average joe

  19. Re:God Will Be Mad by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Funny

    God loves you. I don't, but God does.

  20. Obama's doing them a favor by mspohr · · Score: 2, Informative

    The oil companies are sitting on more proven reserves than can ever be pumped and burned if we are going to avoid catastrophic climate change. Even the Saudi's recognize it and that is why they are pumping as much of their oil as possible now (even at low prices) because they know it will be worth even less in the future. They're even trying to sell all of their oil assets now to some sucker who believes "oil will make a big comeback".
    Most oil companies have oil assets on their books which will be worthless in the future (Google "stranded assets").
    Coal is already done and finished and bankrupt.
    Oil is next... it will take a while to go away (just like IBM and Microsoft are coasting on past glories) but there is no future growth in oil.
    So, Obama is doing them a favor by preventing them from throwing money at Arctic drilling and Atlantic coast drilling. They should thank him (and look for another business opportunity).

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
    1. Re:Obama's doing them a favor by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Actually the Saudis are trying (and succeeding) to drive the new shale oil and similar operations in the USA out of business. For a lot of reasons the Saudis can get oil out of the ground and to market for as low as $6 per barrel in costs while some new US operations were well over $50, and they borrowed a lot to get going.
      Nice friends we have, after attacking Iraq for them and everything.

    2. Re:Obama's doing them a favor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, oil has a bright future as feed stock for CNT production. And that would be low/no emission, too.

    3. Re:Obama's doing them a favor by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The oil companies are sitting on more proven reserves than can ever be pumped and burned if we are going to avoid catastrophic climate change.

      Quite possibly true, but is it relevant?

      Say you have an asset that you have discovered and appraised (in deep water offshore, you've just sunk the thick end of a billion dollars on 4 wells, only 2 of which are well-placed for conversion to production wells) and are trying to decide whether the economics of the industry will allow you to embark on an 8-year simultaneous development drilling (20-odd wells), pipeline laying and construction project for the onshore processing plant, with a total price tag of around 10 billion @ 1250 million/year.

      Is it rational for you as upstream manager to follow a lead (geological prospect, undrilled, untested, 10-30% success probability) which might yeild an asset with comparable reserves, but a 3 billion discovery, appraisal, development and production cost? Following the lead may cost a mere 100 million.

      Not an easy question, is it?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    4. Re: Obama's doing them a favor by mspohr · · Score: 1

      If it's a question of whether to sell your proven reserves (sunk cost) or play exploration roulette to add to reserves which may end up as stranded assets, that's an easy decision if you're not a deluded oil company.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  21. As promised by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    During the 2012 debates.

  22. Another economy will pick up instead by dbIII · · Score: 1

    But not from the USA since a shut down company with former employees scattered all over and the gear auctioned off or scrapped does not start up instantly with a wave of a magic wand. By the time somebody rebuilds from scratch a going concern elsewhere has already filled the niche.

    As for electric cars, the entire point is to shift pollution. Lower costs for something else don't help if your local government tells you to get your SUV out of the place due to smog. China appears to be heading that way too for the same reasons so expect a lot of flimsy but dirt cheap electric vehicles in the next few years. Of course trains, busses, trams whatever in high pollution urban areas makes one hundred times more sense but governments want to shift costs onto vehicle owners instead of doing something that sensible.

    1. Re:Another economy will pick up instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull. Urban public transit had been a huge money-losing scam for decades, serving a tiny fraction of those who wind up paying for it and used mostly for political patronage and leverage. Every build-out in the last 40 years has been followed by a measurable decline in the standard of living of the surrounding region.

    2. Re:Another economy will pick up instead by dbIII · · Score: 1

      It's a big world out there - think of that when you say "every" and only mean whatever fuckup is in front of you instead of obvious success elsewhere.

    3. Re:Another economy will pick up instead by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      nonsense, global market for equipment new and used. plenty of people looking for work. plenty of people with the skills and experience in manufacturing doing other things at moment but would do that if the price is right. I'm one of them, CAD/CAE/CAM is where I was and if someone coughed up the bucks I'd do it again

    4. Re:Another economy will pick up instead by dbIII · · Score: 1

      So a guy doing CAD on a workstation is as easy to get going as drills, pipelines, water treatment, etc etc?
      Interesting perspective. Are you sure you put any thought in at all before composing your reply? Surely you know better than what you have written?

  23. The reversal comes after... by sribe · · Score: 1

    Russia gave up in Syria?

  24. Shortage or what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is there a shortage of oil I was unaware of or something? I though the low oil per crude barrel prices meant that there was already more supply than demand?

  25. Cheap energy means cheap energy by blindseer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We are going to need oil for at least another 30 years. How can I say this? Simple. Boeing has been making planes on a 30 year schedule for a very long time. Any plane they produce today they intend to see flying for the next 30 years. These planes burn kerosene, and they will for 30 years. Therefore we need oil for the next 30 years.

    Not enough for you? You think that isn't enough? That we'll just make new planes that don't need oil? What about trucks, tractors, bulldozers, ships... Let's stop here at shipping for a bit. As much as people might not like it but the world's shipping infrastructure runs on diesel fuel. No diesel fuel and shipping moves at the pace of horses and sails. That is unless we have the time to make a smooth transition to whatever comes next. Perhaps what comes next is synthetic diesel fuel, derived from algae or nuclear power. If we cut ourselves off from cheap oil then we could cut ourselves off from whatever could replace it.

    To put up windmills takes coal fired aluminum smelting, diesel fueled trucks and construction equipment, and so on. If the price of oil goes up then the price of construction goes up, the price of shipping goes up, the price of materials goes up, therefore the price of windmills go up. Solar panel prices go up, ethanol prices go up, energy in whatever form gets more expensive.

    Energy is energy. Expensive oil means expensive everything. Not drilling for oil does not make windmills or solar panels cheaper. As odd as it may sound we need cheap oil to move away from oil. We need to make oil so cheap that it becomes worthless. If we make energy cheap then it becomes unprofitable to drill for it. The path to cheap energy is infrastructure. Right now infrastructure is built with the energy from oil.

    Besides, not drilling for oil in the USA means we buy it from somewhere else. Does anyone out there believe that any other nation will drill oil as responsibly, clean, and safe, as the USA would? If people want to prevent oil spills then we should be drilling for it under the supervision of the US EPA. Also, wars are fought over oil, what if oil from the USA were cheaper than from the dictators of the world? Would these despotic assholes be in power if they could not sell their oil? We need to make oil so cheap that they cannot profit from it. Impossible? Perhaps, but can we at least try?

    Not drilling for oil in the USA is only making the world a less free, dirtier, and more dangerous place.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Cheap energy means cheap energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > less free

      Explain please.

    2. Re:Cheap energy means cheap energy by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      We can try, but not by drilling. Increasing CAFE standards, eliminating use of home heating oil and shifting aviation to biofuels will keep oil cheap. Everything we drill for is not cheap, so that only works once.

    3. Re:Cheap energy means cheap energy by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      We are going to need oil, but less of it. Aircraft are getting more efficient. Cars are getting more efficient and going electric (hybrid/EV). Oil burning electricity generation is being phased out.

      Shipping is an interesting example. Large ships are already starting to go hybrid. Trucks are already hybrid, and some places have fully electric buses now. Sure, there will still be some oil powered vehicles probably long into the future, but nothing like the number we have today.

      Windmills and solar PV already pay back all the emissions and energy used to make them early in their lifetime. Smelting is now often electrically powered.

      Oil will get expensive because demand will go down, and economy of scale will decrease. Fortunately it will be made up for by improvements in efficiency and a move to electrically powering things. That's better for everyone.

      Does anyone out there believe that any other nation will drill oil as responsibly, clean, and safe, as the USA would?

      I'd hope not, judging by the problems the US seems to have had with drilling of late.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Cheap energy means cheap energy by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      We are going to need oil for at least another 30 years. How can I say this? Simple. Boeing has been making planes...

      Here's another for you: used cars. It takes a newly-built car about 30 years to cycle (almost) completely out of the market. The average age of a car on US roads today is more than 11 years old. There are 14 million cars on US roads that are 25 years old or older.

      So even if the entire auto industry switched to electric next year (which they aren't even close to doing), we'd still need gasoline production for 30 more years.

    5. Re:Cheap energy means cheap energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only time demand for oil has gone down is during recession, when the economy actually slows down. Switching significantly from oil is still a progressive thing that will take decades of incremental change. In the interim we still have to keep the lights on and vehicles moving unless we decide to go back to an agrarian lifestyle. Even if the switchover is inevitable, which I sincerely believe, we can't end its use promptly. It's not physically possible without crashing the economy first or prioritizing essential uses such as food production, lest people starve (go ahead: suddenly cut fuel consumption by 50% and see what happens).

      You mention hybrid vehicles, which are great, but A) they're more expensive to put together and maintain, B) their extra cost is only justified economically at higher fuel prices, and C) they still use oil. It is an improvement in efficiency, which helps, but it isn't a substantial change. It's a small effort that is negated each time someone buys an SUV or 4WD vehicle instead of an ordinary passenger car or taking mass transit.

      The US is overall a very safe and environmentally responsible area for oil and gas exploration compared to much of the world. The fact that it's recently had the oil and gas equivalent of a major plane crash doesn't mean the business is notably less safe. Of the thousands of wells drilled every year, how many have resulted in disaster? Accidents are a symptom that nothing is perfect and that there is still room for improvement. Like commercial flight, that doesn't mean people are suddenly deciding not to use the product, or that the public is better served by shutting down domestic operations and letting the risk be pushed into other jurisdictions to meet the same demand as ever.

      The alternatives are a genuine start, but anyone who thinks we've already made a major dent does not understand the full extent of the challenge. We have a long way to go.

    6. Re:Cheap energy means cheap energy by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Screw kerosene and energy. We'll need oil to produce all the plastics we currently make. Modern medicine alone owes a great deal to having an endless supply of cheap, virgin, sterile, packaged plastic devices. Long after we're all driving electric cars, we'll still be pumping oil for manufacturing reasons.

    7. Re:Cheap energy means cheap energy by blindseer · · Score: 1

      "We are going to need oil, but less of it. Aircraft are getting more efficient. Cars are getting more efficient and going electric (hybrid/EV). Oil burning electricity generation is being phased out."

      Do you believe that after 30 years of burning oil, and perhaps less and less every year, that we won't still need new wells to replace those that run dry? I don't know how long an oil well will produce oil but I'm quite certain that it's not more than 30 years. We will need more oil.

      "Shipping is an interesting example. Large ships are already starting to go hybrid. Trucks are already hybrid, and some places have fully electric buses now."

      These so called "hybrid" trucks and ships are not "hybrid" like we think of hybrid cars. That "hybrid" term is marketing speak for a diesel electric drive train much like how rail locomotives have been "hybrid" for decades. They burn diesel fuel to drive a generator which then drives electric motors to move the vehicle, there are no electric storage devices to charge up and power the vehicle for any part of it's journey, they are powered solely with energy from diesel fuel. This makes them marginally more efficient and cheaper to maintain. What it also does is make them last longer, so they will continue to burn diesel fuel for perhaps longer than the 30 years of their predecessors.

      "Oil will get expensive because demand will go down, and economy of scale will decrease. Fortunately it will be made up for by improvements in efficiency and a move to electrically powering things. That's better for everyone."

      I agree but if we make oil expensive artificially then we are only delaying this transition. The best way to speed this transition along is making energy cheap in whatever form it may take, free up resources for research, and encourage competition.

      Let's assume that windmill subsidies are "good" for the moment, since I assume you believe them to be a good idea. Where does the money come from for this subsidy? It comes from things like leases on government land. If the federal government does not sell these leases then there is less money in the government coffers to spend on windmill subsidies. Certainly we could cut spending in other areas to make up for the loss in leases but then who in Congress is going to allow their baby to get killed to free up this money?

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    8. Re:Cheap energy means cheap energy by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Obviously we're going to be using oil as fuel far into the future, since it has tremendous energy density. That doesn't mean we have to get all the oil we can right now. Equally obviously, the cheaper we make oil, the less incentive to look for any replacement.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    9. Re:Cheap energy means cheap energy by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Obviously we're going to be using oil as fuel far into the future, since it has tremendous energy density. That doesn't mean we have to get all the oil we can right now.

      If we don't drill for it soon then we might not have the time, energy, or resources to drill for it later. As pointed out elsewhere this oil reserve is a valuable military asset. If war breaks out then we are going to need access to oil right away, not a year later. Failing to drill now puts the USA at an economic and military disadvantage.

      Equally obviously, the cheaper we make oil, the less incentive to look for any replacement.

      Do you honestly believe that people will stop looking for oil alternatives if oil gets cheap? Energy is a trillion dollar industry. Anyone that can take a fraction of that will be very wealthy. People know this and will do everything that they can to take a slice of that pie. The problem is that it takes money to make money. By making energy expensive then there is less money for the luxury of energy research, people will be more focused on the necessities of food, water, clothing, and shelter.

      A bit more on the necessities of food, water, clothing and shelter.... There are people in the USA that have a hard time paying for these necessities. Making energy expensive in the hope it will encourage alternatives means making the lives of these people less comfortable. It may mean having these people decide to pay the electric bill or buy medicine. Your desire to drive research in alternatives could kill people.

      I don't want to see people dead, do you? These people must die for the benefit of mankind, perhaps? I do hope you don't believe that.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    10. Re:Cheap energy means cheap energy by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      If we don't drill for it soon then we might not have the time, energy, or resources to drill for it later.

      That's quite illogical. If we need it later the value will increase enough to make drilling worthwhile.

      If war breaks out then we are going to need access to oil right away, not a year later. Failing to drill now puts the USA at an economic and military disadvantage.

      Wow, I don't even know where to begin with that one. I guess I'll start with the fact that it's a last century argument. The kind of war I'm sure you're referring to has been supplanted by MAD. On top of that, the pentagon can take care of its own needs if it feels the *current* reserve isn't enough. I'm not even sure you believe your own fear-mongering here.

      Do you honestly believe that people will stop looking for oil alternatives if oil gets cheap?

      Due to natural market incentives? Yes, obviously.

      Making energy expensive in the hope it will encourage alternatives means making the lives of these people less comfortable. It may mean having these people decide to pay the electric bill or buy medicine. Your desire to drive research in alternatives could kill people. I don't want to see people dead, do you?

      Maybe we should tax oil to make it more expensive and then use the proceeds to subsidize the low-income population. After all, global climate change could kill people. I don't want to see people dead, do you?

    11. Re:Cheap energy means cheap energy by blindseer · · Score: 1

      Maybe we should tax oil to make it more expensive and then use the proceeds to subsidize the low-income population. After all, global climate change could kill people. I don't want to see people dead, do you?

      So, we tax carbon so that the price goes up, then we give subsidies so that the poor can afford the taxes? How does this actually lower the amount of carbon produced? I believe that you didn't think this through.

      Is it also possible that the carbon taxes raise the costs to businesses to the point that they have to lay off people? How does being unemployed help out the poor?

      Sure, climate change could kill people but that's years from now. Being unemployed or taxed to the point a family cannot afford both food and medicine, can mean being dead much sooner. If starvation doesn't kill them then it's freezing to death in the next winter.

      I'm pretty sure that the only way out of this spiral is nuclear power or some future technology. Raising the costs of energy only delays either more. Lowering energy prices brings them sooner.

      Do you honestly believe that people will stop looking for oil alternatives if oil gets cheap?

      Due to natural market incentives? Yes, obviously.

      Natural market incentives also means that if we raise the price of oil then the price of the alternative will only drop to the price of the oil. Cheaper oil means cheaper wind, solar, and bio-fuels too. Raising the price of energy artificially doesn't give an incentive to improve, it gives an incentive to stay put. Wind is already cheaper than coal in some places, if we want to see that spread then we need an incentive to get lower, and the resources to do it. We free more resources with cheap energy.

      I just saw a TED Talk on what is holding up energy investments. One big thing is the payback period. If costs go up because energy is expensive then the payback period gets longer. Cheaper energy shortens that period. If that period is too long then no one invests. The more we can shorten it then the more people will buy windmills.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    12. Re:Cheap energy means cheap energy by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      We are going to need oil for at least another 30 years. How can I say this? Simple. Boeing has been making planes on a 30 year schedule for a very long time. Any plane they produce today they intend to see flying for the next 30 years. These planes burn kerosene, and they will for 30 years. Therefore we need oil for the next 30 years.

      Fair example on the surface. But there is not one plane I've ever seen which burns kerosene. Or any other fuel. Including the Space Shuttle. They have engines which burn the fuel for them, converting fuel into thrust.

      The structure of the aircraft does things like pumping the fuel from storage tanks to the engine, operating throttles, that sort of thing. And even on the Shuttle, the pumps and plumbing, and ALWAYS the engines could be changed, and were far more frequently than the aircraft themselves.

      To change a Jet-A1 burning plane to burning bio-AvGas might involve tank liners (remember the last commercial Concorde - even for non-military planes, tank liners are significant engineering), pumps, pipes and the engines themselves. But they are all, by design reasonably replaceable. Even the popular Slashdot Car analogy holds - look at the numbers of people who change a vehicle from running on "regular" to unleaded, or unleaded to AutoGas (propane/ butane mix), or "regular" to nitrous-injection. Sure, it's a big refit, but it's not a complete rebuild.

      I suspect that conversion to bio-AvGas will be causing more headaches for Pratt-&-Whitney and Rolls-Royce (and some others) than for Airbus, Boeing, Embraer, Tupolev etc. If the engines people can re-fit an existing line of engines for appropriate performance with bio-AvGas while the others have to sell a new line of engines ... that's a competition-killer technology.

      To put up windmills takes coal fired aluminum smelting.

      Odd. For a very long time the economics of the Al industry have made big-sea-level-Hydro the determining factor for siting Al-smelters Someone who owns a coal mine must be doing a huge amount of bribery. For a start, the unavoidable coal-to-electricity conversion is going to throw away 70%+ of your energy (OK - I'll be generous. 65%).

      You can build windmills with steel (or even cast iron, with care) towers and carbon-fibre-reinforced-epoxy-resin blades (for both of the components, CF and epoxy, you need hydrocarbon-derived long chains of carbon atoms, BTW). They're not energy-cheap - but they don't depend on Al. If you're in a remote location, then the energy cost of installing something heavier might become part of your calculations, but in well-populated locations, material cost ($ or MJ) is likely to be more important.

      As much as people might not like it but the world's shipping infrastructure runs on diesel fuel.

      Ah. You're familiar with luxury shipping? Bulk shipping, where the metric is $-per-tonne-kilometre, uses the cheapest fuel it can get. For decades now, that has often been "bunker oil" (hint : check what "bunker" means in harbour terminology). It isn't anything like diesel, in terms of cost, smell, calorie content, corrosion-control (let the buyer beware ! ), sulphur content (it is often the highest-sulphur content fuel around - because it is almost always sold to be burned "elsewhere"). I've even had ships engineers bitchng at the galley table about the particle count (which fucks their filters and injectors), which simple mechanical filters could solve - but don't. For cost.

      Does anyone out there believe that any other nation will drill oil as responsibly, clean, and safe, as the USA would?

      Oh, I do so shudder! Quick check - do you have 3, 5, 9, or 17 years more experience of working with US and non-US drilling conttractors than I do? Of the (counts ... 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15) fifteen different countries I've worked in drilling for, the worst a

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  26. He rejects drilling ... now that there's no demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama rejects new drilling at a time when nobody wants to do any new drilling? With the price of oil hovering ~$37/barrel, who the hell is going to be interested in making massive investments in new production capacity? A new president is coming onto the scene in 10 months anyway, so the decision can also be quickly reversed when oil prices increase.
    If the President had the courage of his convictions, he would have done this AND stopped the Keystone XL project before the last presidential election.

  27. He hasn't succeeded in business. He's dumb. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What he HAS done is marketed his name and proclaimed no failures (see his debacle showing off the "Trump Business products" that weren't Trump's, for example. He doesn't give a shit he's lying, and he knows his supporters will willfully blind themselves to the lies because they hope they'll be winners when he gets power. As opposed to being fucked in the ear. And the MSM he can easily bully. They want the ratings more than they want journalism.

  28. Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Less in a year left in this failure of a presidency called Obama. Trump will allow them drill. Sometimes it seems like Obama thinks of the worst thing he could do, and dose it just to give people the middle finger.

    1. Re:Don't worry by Notorious+G · · Score: 1

      It's fascinating to watch you get modded down while, simultaneously on another thread, those very same people modding you down are freaking out (justifiably so) about Obama's DOJ seizing Apple's iOS source code.

  29. Oil won't just go away by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I've said as much as soon as people started talking about electric cars in any meaningful way. Oil used for personal transportation may go away, but there are plenty of things we depend on too heavily in our current way of life to go anywhere.

    Planes being one as you mentioned. Passenger planes use oil, no getting around it. Unless we want to go back to Zeppelins that take a week to get anywhere, there isn't much for alternatives.

    Ocean Shipping. You like the global market, and getting widgets from China, well you need huge shipping vessels. These things run on oil. They have things like twin 30,000HP engines running them. You are not replacing them with anything... Millions of sailing ships perhaps, but then costs make it worthless.

    The other thing is fertilizer, oil is used in it's production, and to a lesser extent tractors and other mechanized farming equipment that due to how we grow food today globally, isn't something we can just stop doing.

    Oil won't get expensive, quite the opposite for a very long time. Demand will be going down, while reserves will still be very high. Sure companies won't be expanding, but only because they won't need to. Some of that economy of scale will make it more expensive to produce perhaps, and there could be some turmoil with failing companies and others being bought out (more consolidation if you can believe it probably)... Anyway all of this is very far out, as you say at least 30 years. Anyway I don't see oil ever going truly away unless A) some here to unknown magic technology suddenly makes it irrelevant, or B) we remarkably change the way in which we live, like back to the stone ages (well prior to the industrial revolution anyway) with much less population etc...

  30. In other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IOW, the Saudis told him no.

  31. Republican heads explode by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    - We love sucking the Kochs of big oil ! We must be angry !
    - But the military was against this, and we love the military cock too, we must be happy !
    - But the Kochs gave us lots of money ! We must be angry
    - But the military has all those juicy defense contracts that keep all our other funders happy, so we must be happy ! ...
    Obama did this, don't matter what we know, don't matter what else was says - nothing else matters except that Obama did this - we get to be angry no matter what.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  32. Re:God Will Be Mad by silentcoder · · Score: 1

    We cannot however burn the bodies of the climatologists. God may think we're using them for energy...

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  33. Re:God Will Be Mad by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    You'll be OK with God (or at least, his followers - it amounts to exactly the same thing) as long as you burn the climatologists and other people who disagree with you BEFORE they die.

    You might love the smell of napalm in the morning, but God, by all names, really loves the screams of the tormented in the morning.

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"